Ec 044

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283769124
The Bailey method of gradation evaluation: The inﬂuence of aggregate gradation

and packing characteristics on voids in the mineral aggregate
Article · January 2001
CITATIONS READS
107 12,475
5 authors, including:
William Vavrik
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
26 PUBLICATIONS 528 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by William Vavrik on 06 August 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
CIRCULAR
Number E-C044 October 2002
Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in

Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixture Design
TRANSPORTATION Number E-C044, October 2002
RESEARCH ISSN 0097-8515
E-CIRCULAR

Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixture Design
COMMITTEE ON CHARACTERISTICS OF BITUMINOUS-AGGREGATE COMBINATIONS TO
MEET SURFACE REQUIREMENTS (A2D03)
Timothy B. Aschenbrener, Chair
Brian D. Aho Kent R. Hansen James S. Moulthrop

Hussain U. Bahia Thomas P. Harman John W. H. Oliver
W. R. Bill Ballou Michael A. Heitzman David B. Powers
Mark S. Buncher Gerald A. Huber Murari M. Pradhan
Samuel H. Carpenter Kang-Won Wayne Lee Vittorio Ranieri
L. Allen Cooley, Jr. Eyad A. Masad James A. Scherocman
Dale S. Decker G. W. Maupin, Jr. Larry Scofield
John E. Haddock Yusuf A. Mehta Scott Shuler
Kevin D. Hall Louay N. Mohammad John J. Weigel, Jr.
COMMITTEE ON CHARACTERISTICS OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES TO

MEET STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS (A2D04)
Ramon Bonaquist, Chair
R. Michael Anderson John T. Harvey James A. Scherocman

Timothy B. Aschenbrener Y. Richard Kim Jack E. Stephens
William G. Buttlar Rita B. Leahy Anthony Frederick Stock
Bruce A. Chadbourn Amy Epps Martin Mary Stroup-Gardiner
Donald W. Chistensen Dean A. Maurer Maghsoud Tahmoressi
Jo Sias Daniel Leslie Ann Meyers Ronald L. Terrel
Dale S. Decker James S. Moulthrop Harold L. Von Quintus
Jim Gee Julie E. Nodes John J. Weigel, Jr.
Pedro Romero
Reynaldo Roque
Frederick D. Hejl, TRB Representative
Subscriber category Transportation Research Board

IIIB materials and construction 500 5th Street, NW
TRB website: Washington, DC 20001
www.TRB.org
The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves as an independent adviser to the federal
government on scientific and technical questions of national importance. The National Research Council, jointly administered by the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, brings the resources of the entire scientific and
technical community to bear on national problems through its volunteer advisory committees.
The Transportation Research Board is distributing this Circular to make the information contained herein available for use by individual
practitioners in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this Circular was taken directly from the submissions of the authors. This document is not a report of the National
Research Council or of the National Academy of Sciences.
Foreword
T his Circular is a synopsis of current information on the Bailey Method, a systematic

approach to selecting and adjusting aggregate gradation in hot-mix asphalt (HMA) design.
Originally developed by Robert Bailey (retired) of the Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT), the method advocates a strong aggregate skeleton for rut resistance along with adequate
voids in mineral aggregate for good durability. The method has been used by District 5 of the
IDOT since the early 1980s, and in the 1990s IDOT promoted the use of the method throughout
the state.
Two Transportation Research Board Committees—Committee on Characteristics of
Bituminous–Aggregate Combinations to Meet Surface Requirements (A2D03) and Committee
on Characteristics of Bituminous Paving Mixtures to Meet Structural Requirements (A2D04)—
were asked to review the information presented by the authors. The committees agreed that it
should be of interest to materials and pavement engineers and others responsible for designing
HMA pavements.
i
Contents
Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in HMA Mixture Design.............................................1
What Is the Bailey Method?..........................................................................................................2

Development.............................................................................................................................2
Basic Principles ........................................................................................................................3
Bailey Method Principles and Fine-Graded Mixes...................................................................17

Volume of Fine Aggregate .....................................................................................................17
The Two-Part Process.............................................................................................................17
Determining the New Ratios ..................................................................................................17
Bailey Method Principles and SMA Mixes................................................................................19
Use of Recycled Asphalt Pavement ............................................................................................21
Evaluating Existing Mixture Designs with the Bailey Method................................................22

Evaluating Conventional Dense-Graded HMA Designs with
No Recycled Asphalt Pavement ......................................................................................22
Evaluating Dense-Graded Designs Containing RAP .............................................................23
Example Bailey Method Design Calculations ...........................................................................24

Bailey Method Blending Example Calculations.....................................................................24
Example Calculations for Fine-Graded Mixes .......................................................................30
References.....................................................................................................................................34
ii
HMA Mixture Design
WILLIAM R. VAVRIK
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
GERALD HUBER
WILLIAM J. PINE
Heritage Research Group
SAMUEL H. CARPENTER
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
ROBERT BAILEY
Materials Engineer (Retired)
A sphalt mixtures are composed of pieces of broken rock glued together with an asphalt
binder. In practice, hot-mix asphalt (HMA) is a very simple material. Actually, HMA as a
construction material is much more complicated than it appears.
HMA is a composite material consisting of aggregate particles (hard pieces of rock) of
different sizes, an asphalt binder that is much softer than the aggregate, and air voids. The
response of HMA to traffic and environmental loads depends on the properties of the
constituents and the proportion (by volume) of each. In turn, the performance of the HMA in
rutting, cracking, and durability is directly related to the mixture response to loads.
Highway engineers often refer to a skeleton in the mixture when discussing the role of
aggregate. Indeed, most of the compressive strength and resistance to movement under truck
loads comes from the aggregate. Properties of the skeleton are related directly to the hardness,
shape, texture, and gradation of the aggregate. Of these properties, gradation is the most
unstructured.
The 0.45-power grading chart is the only tool available to designers for the evaluation of
gradation. Except for some very general rules, such as “Stay away from the maximum density
line to increase voids in the mineral aggregate,” there was no guidance for the effect of gradation
on mixture properties. Most designers just learn by experience how gradation changes mixture
properties.
The Bailey Method for gradation selection considers the packing characteristics of
aggregates. The parameters in the method are related directly to voids in the mineral aggregate
(VMA), air voids, and compaction properties.
The Bailey Method is a means to design the aggregate interlock and aggregate structure
in an asphalt mixture. The principles in the method can be used from the asphalt mix design
through the quality control process, but are not a mix design method. The method does not
address the appropriate aggregate properties or asphalt mix properties required to produce a
quality asphalt mixture. This document describes the Bailey Method for Aggregate Selection in
HMA Mixture Design.
1
What Is the Bailey Method?
T raditionally, asphalt mixtures have been designed using a trial-and-error procedure to

select the aggregate gradation. Aggregates are combined in “typical” percentages that
were developed from years of experience. A design method for all mixtures has not been
available that provides a means to design the degree of coarse aggregate interlock desired
in the asphalt mixture. Work done by National Center for Asphalt Technology for
designing stone matrix asphalt (SMA) mixtures is very helpful to determine the degree of
interlock achieved. This concept of comparing voids in the coarse aggregate (VCA) of the
mix to the dry rodded condition (DRC) of the coarse aggregate can also be used for
evaluating interlock in dense-graded mixtures.
The Bailey Method is a systematic approach to blending aggregates that provides
aggregate interlock as the backbone of the structure and a balanced continuous gradation to
complete the mixture. The method provides a set of tools that allows the evaluation of
aggregate blends. These tools provide a better understanding in the relationship between
aggregate gradation and mixture voids.
The Bailey Method gives the practitioner tools to develop and adjust aggregate
blends. The new procedures help to ensure aggregate interlock (if desired) and good
aggregate packing, giving resistance to permanent deformation, while maintaining
volumetric properties that provide resistance to environmental distress.
DEVELOPMENT
The Bailey Method was originally developed by Mr. Robert Bailey (retired) of the Illinois
Department of Transportation, District 5. This method is based on his experience in the
design of asphalt mixtures. Mr. Bailey developed these methods as a means to combat the
rutting of asphalt mixes while maintaining the proper durability characteristics.
The procedures originally developed by Mr. Bailey have been refined by Dr. Bill
Vavrik, ERES Consultant Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc., and Mr. Bill Pine,
Heritage Research, to present a systematic approach to aggregate blending that is
applicable to all dense-graded asphalt mixtures, regardless of the maximum size aggregate
in the mixture. It can be used with any method of mix design, including Superpave®,
Marshall, or Hveem. The method can also be used with SMA, for which guidance is
provided in the section on Bailey Method Principles and SMA Mixes, page 19.
In the Bailey Method aggregate interlock is selected as a design input. Aggregate
interlock will provide a rut-resistant mixture. To ensure that the mixture contains adequate
asphalt binder, VMA is changed by changing the packing of the coarse and fine aggregates.
In this way asphalt mixtures developed with the Bailey Method can have a strong skeleton
for high stability and adequate VMA for good durability.
These aggregate blending procedures have been validated with laboratory analysis
and field trials (1,2,3,4). The laboratory work performed to date includes the many mix
designs used in Illinois by Mr. Robert Bailey, who used the method to improve the
performance of Illinois highways but did not publish his studies. Additionally, the
relationships between aggregate gradation and the resulting mixture volumetric properties
are well documented in the studies of Vavrik (4). Internationally, the Bailey Method has
been used in a laboratory asphalt research program in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to
2
What Is the Bailey Method? 3
improve the rutting performance of their mixtures. Field trials have been placed in Dubai,
France, Canada, and throughout the United States. The results of these laboratory and field
trials will be published as the results are available.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
To develop a method for combining aggregates to optimize aggregate interlock and provide
the proper volumetric properties, it is necessary to understand some of the controlling
factors that affect the design and performance of these mixtures. The explanation of coarse
and fine aggregates given in the following section provide a background for understanding
the combination of aggregates. The Bailey Method builds on that understanding and
provides more insight into the combination of aggregates for use in an asphalt mixture.
The Bailey Method uses two principles that are the basis of the relationship between
aggregate gradation and mixture volumetrics:
• Aggregate packing, and

• Definition of coarse and fine aggregate.
With these principles, the primary steps in the Bailey Method are:
• Combine aggregates by volume, and

• Analyze the combined blend.
Aggregate Packing
Aggregate particles cannot be packed together to fill a volume completely. There will
always be space between the aggregate particles. The degree of packing depends on:
• Type and amount of compactive energy. Several types of compactive force can
be used, including static pressure, impact (e.g., Marshall hammer), or shearing (e.g.,
gyratory shear compactor or California kneading compactor). Higher density can be
achieved by increasing the compactive effort (i.e., higher static pressure, more blows of the
hammer, or more tamps or gyrations).
• Shape of the particles. Flat and elongated particles tend to resist packing in a
dense configuration. Cubical particles tend to arrange in dense configurations.
• Surface texture of the particles. Particles with smooth textures will re-orient
more easily into denser configurations. Particles with rough surfaces will resist sliding
against one another.
• Size distribution (gradation) of the particles. Single-sized particles will not pack
as densely as a mixture of particle sizes.
• Strength of the particles. Strength of the aggregate particles directly affects the
amount of degradation that occurs in a compactor or under rollers. Softer aggregates
typically degrade more than strong aggregates and allow denser aggregate packing to be
achieved.
The properties listed above can be used to characterize both coarse and fine
aggregates. The individual characteristics of a given aggregate, along with the amount used
4 Transportation Research Circular E-C044: Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in HMA Mixture Design
in the blend, has a direct impact on the resulting mix properties. When comparing different
sources of comparably sized aggregates, the designer should consider these individual
characteristics in addition to the Bailey Method principles presented. Even though an
aggregate may have acceptable characteristics, it may not combine well with the other
proposed aggregates for use in the design. The final combination of coarse and fine
aggregates, and their corresponding individual properties, determines the packing
characteristics of the overall blend for a given type and amount of compaction. Therefore,
aggregate source selection is an important part of the asphalt mix design process.
Coarse and Fine Aggregate

The traditional definition of coarse aggregate is any particle that is retained by the 4.75-
mm sieve. Fine aggregate is defined as any aggregate that passes the 4.75-mm sieve (sand,
silt, and clay size material). The same sieve is used for 9.5-mm mixtures as 25.0-mm
mixtures.
In the Bailey Method, the definition of coarse and fine is more specific in order to
determine the packing and aggregate interlock provided by the combination of aggregates
in various sized mixtures. The Bailey Method definitions are:
• Coarse Aggregate: Large aggregate particles that when placed in a unit volume
create voids.
• Fine Aggregate: Aggregate particles that can fill the voids created by the coarse
aggregate in the mixture.
From these definitions, more than a single aggregate size is needed to define coarse
or fine. The definition of coarse and fine depends on the nominal maximum particle size
(NMPS) of the mixture.
In a dense-graded blend of aggregate with a NMPS of 37.5 mm, the 37.5-mm
particles come together to make voids. Those voids are large enough to be filled with 9.5-
mm aggregate particles, making the 9.5-mm particles fine aggregate. Now consider a
typical surface mix with a NMPS of 9.5 mm. In this blend of aggregates, the 9.5-mm
particles are considered coarse aggregate.
In the Bailey Method, the sieve which defines coarse and fine aggregate is known as
the primary control sieve (PCS), and the PCS is based on the NMPS of the aggregate blend.
The break between coarse and fine aggregate is shown in Figure 1. The PCS is
defined as the closest sized sieve to the result of the PCS formula in Equation 1.
PCS = NMPS × 0.22 (1)
where
PCS = PCS for the overall blend

NMPS = NMPS for the overall blend, which is one sieve larger than the first sieve that
retains
more than 10% (as defined by Superpave terminology)
100
90
80 Fine
70 Aggregate
% Passing
60
50
Coarse
Aggregate
40
30
20
10
0
0.075 0.30 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19.0 25.0
Sieve Size (to 0.45 power)
FIGURE 1 Example of break between coarse and fine aggregate for 19.0 NMPS mixture.
The value of 0.22 used in the control sieve equation was determined from a two- (2-
D) and three-dimensional (3-D) analysis of the packing of different shaped particles. The
2-D analysis of the combination of particles shows that the particle diameter ratio ranges
from 0.155 (all round) to 0.289 (all flat) with an average value of 0.22 (1,2,3,4). The 3-D
analysis of the combination of particles gives a similar result with the particle diameter ratio
ranging from 0.15 (hexagonal close-packed spheres) to 0.42 (cubical packing of spheres) (5,6,7).
In addition, research on particle packing distinctly shows that the packing of particles follows
different models when the characteristic diameter is above or below 0.22 ratio (8,9,10,11).
While 0.22 may not be exactly correct for every asphalt mixture, the analysis of gradation
is not affected if the value ranges from 0.18 to 0.28. The 0.22 factor is the average condition of
many different packing configurations.
Combining Aggregates by Volume

All aggregate blends contain an amount and size of voids, which are a function of the packing
characteristics of the blend. In combining aggregates we must first determine the amount and
size of the voids created by the coarse aggregates and fill those voids with the appropriate
amount of fine aggregate.
Mix design methods generally are based on volumetric analysis, but for simplicity,
aggregates are combined on a weight basis. Most mix design methods correct the percent passing
by weight to percent passing by volume when significant differences exist among the aggregate
stockpiles. To evaluate the degree of aggregate interlock in a mixture the designer needs to
evaluate a mixture based on volume.
To evaluate the volumetric combination of aggregates, additional information must be
gathered. For each of the coarse aggregate stockpiles, the loose and rodded unit weights must be
determined, and for each fine aggregate stockpile, the rodded unit weight must be determined.
These measurements provide the volumetric data at the specific void structure required to
evaluate interlock properties.
FIGURE 2 Loose unit weight of coarse aggregate.
Loose Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

The loose unit weight of an aggregate is the amount of aggregate that fills a unit volume without
any compactive effort applied. This condition represents the beginning of coarse aggregate
interlock (i.e., particle-to-particle contact) without any compactive effort applied. The loose unit
weight is depicted in Figure 2.
The loose unit weight is determined on each coarse aggregate using the shoveling
procedure outlined in AASHTO T-19: Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate, which leaves the
aggregate in a loose condition in the metal unit weight bucket. The loose unit weight (density in
kg/m3) is calculated by dividing the weight of aggregate by the volume of the metal bucket.
Using the aggregate bulk specific gravity and the loose unit weight, the volume of voids for this
condition is also determined. This condition represents the volume of voids present when the
particles are just into contact without any outside compactive effort being applied.
Rodded Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

The rodded unit weight of aggregate is the amount of aggregate that fills a unit volume with
compactive effort applied. The compactive effort increases the particle to particle contact and
decreases the volume of voids in the aggregate. Rodded unit weight is depicted in Figure 3.
The rodded unit weight is determined on each coarse aggregate using the rodding
procedure outlined in AASHTO T-19: Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate, which leaves the
aggregate in a compacted condition in the metal unit weight bucket. The rodded unit weight
(density in kg/m3) is calculated by dividing the weight of aggregate by the volume of the metal
bucket. Using the aggregate bulk specific gravity and the rodded unit weight, the volume of
voids for this condition is also determined. This condition represents the volume of voids present
when the particles are further into contact due to the compactive effort applied.
FIGURE 3 Rodded unit weight of coarse aggregate.
Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

The designer needs to select the interlock of coarse aggregate desired in their mix design.
Therefore, they choose a unit weight of coarse aggregate, which establishes the volume of coarse
aggregate in the aggregate blend and the degree of aggregate interlock.
In the Bailey Method, coarse-graded is defined as mixtures which have a coarse
aggregate skeleton. Fine-graded mixtures do not have enough coarse aggregate particles (i.e.,
larger than the PCS) to form a skeleton, and therefore the load is carried predominantly by the
fine aggregate. To select a chosen unit weight the designer needs to decide if the mixture is to be
coarse-graded or fine-graded. Considerations for selecting a chosen unit weight are shown in
Figure 4.
The loose unit weight is the lower limit of coarse aggregate interlock. Theoretically, it is
the dividing line between fine-graded and coarse-graded mixtures. If the mix designer chooses a
unit weight of coarse aggregate less than the loose unit weight, the coarse aggregate particles are
spread apart and are not in a uniform particle-to-particle contact condition. Therefore, a fine
aggregate skeleton is developed and properties for these blends are primarily related to the fine
aggregate characteristics.
The rodded unit weight is generally considered to be the upper limit of coarse aggregate
interlock for dense-graded mixtures. This value is typically near 110% of the loose unit weight.
As the chosen unit weight approaches the rodded unit weight, the amount of compactive effort
required for densification increases significantly, which can make a mixture difficult to construct
in the field.
For dense-graded mixtures, the chosen unit weight is selected as a percentage of the loose
unit weight of coarse aggregate. If the desire is to obtain some degree of coarse aggregate interlock
(as with coarse-graded mixtures), the percentage used should range from 95% to 105% of the loose
unit weight. For soft aggregates prone to degradation the chosen unit weight should be nearer to
105% of the loose unit weight (2). Values exceeding 105% of the loose unit weight should be
Loose Unit Weight Rodded Unit Weight
Chosen Unit Weight
Dense-Graded Mix Dense-Graded Mix SMA Mixes

(Fine Mix) (Coarse Mix)
FIGURE 4 Selection of chosen unit weight of coarse aggregates.
avoided due to the increased probability of aggregate degradation and increased difficulty with field
compaction.
With fine-graded mixtures, the chosen unit weight should be less than 90% of the loose
unit weight, to ensure the predominant skeleton is controlled by the fine aggregate structure.
Additional information for fine-graded mixtures is presented in the section on Bailey Method
Principles and Fine-Graded Mixes, page 17.
For all dense-graded mixtures, it is recommended the designer should not use a chosen
unit weight in the range of 90% to 95% of the loose unit weight. Mixtures designed in this range
have a high probability of varying in and out of coarse aggregate interlock in the field with the
tolerances generally allowed on the PCS.
It is normal for an aggregate blend to consolidate more than the selected chosen unit weight
due to the lubricating effect of asphalt binder. Also, each coarse aggregate typically contains some
amount of fine material when the unit weights are determined, which causes both unit weights (i.e.,
loose and rodded) to be slightly heavier than they would have been, had this material been
removed by sieving prior to the test. Therefore, a chosen unit weight as low as 95% of the loose
unit weight can often be used and still result in some degree of coarse aggregate interlock.
If the designer wants to determine the degree of interlock achieved with a given design in
relation to the actual loose unit weight of the coarse aggregate, it is suggested they refer to the
National Asphalt Pavement Association Quality Improvement Series 122: Designing and
Constructing SMA Mixtures—State-of-the-Practice (12). This document discusses the calculations
necessary for determining the VCA of the mixture and the VCA of the coarse aggregate in the
DRC, which are used for evaluating interlock in SMA mixtures. In the case of a dense-graded
mixture, the designer can determine the actual VCA in the dry loose condition (DLC) by
performing a loose unit weight test on the combined material retained on the PCS for a given
blend, along with determining the combined specific gravity for this material. By also determining
the VCAMIX, it can be compared to the VCADLC to determine the degree of aggregate interlock
achieved in relation to the loose unit weight condition for a specific blend.
In summary, the amount of additional consolidation, if any, beyond the selected chosen unit
weight depends on several factors:
• Aggregate strength, shape, and texture;

• The amount of fine aggregate that exists in each coarse aggregate when the loose
and rodded unit weight tests are performed;
• Combined blend characteristics;
• Relation of the selected chosen unit weight to the rodded unit weight of coarse
aggregate;
• Type of compactive effort applied (Marshall, Gyratory, etc.); and
• Amount of compactive effort applied (75 versus 125 gyrations, 50 versus 75
blows, etc.).
After selecting the desired chosen unit weight of the coarse aggregate, the amount of
fine aggregate required to fill the corresponding VCA is determined.
Rodded Unit Weight of Fine Aggregate

For dense-graded mixtures, the voids created by the coarse aggregate at the chosen unit
weight are filled with an equal volume of fine aggregate at the rodded unit weight condition.
The rodded unit weight is used to ensure the fine aggregate structure is at or near its
maximum strength. The rodded unit weight of fine aggregate is shown in Figure 5.
Rodded unit weight is determined on each fine aggregate stockpile as outlined in the
rodding procedure in AASHTO T-19: Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate, which leaves the
aggregate in a compacted condition in the unit weight container. For most fine aggregates,
which typically have a NMPS of 4.75 mm or less, a proctor mold, 100-mm diameter is used,
which is a metal mold, approximately 0.9 liter in volume. The rodded unit weight (density in
kg/m3) is calculated by dividing the weight of the aggregate by the volume of the mold. In a
dense-graded mixture, the rodded unit weight is always used to determine the appropriate
amount of fine aggregate needed to fill the voids in the coarse aggregate at the chosen unit
weight condition. A chosen unit weight is not selected. Note that the rodded unit weight is
not determined for dust sized material, such as mineral filler (MF) or bag house fines.
Determining a Design Blend

The only additional information required other than that typically used in a dense-graded mix
design is the corresponding unit weight for each coarse and fine aggregate [excluding MF,
bag house fines, and recycled asphalt pavement (RAP)]. The following decisions are made
by the designer and used to determine the individual aggregate percentages by weight and the
resulting combined blend:
• Bulk specific gravity of each aggregate,

• Chosen unit weight of the coarse aggregates,
• Rodded unit weight of the fine aggregates,
• Blend by volume of the coarse aggregates totaling 100.0%,
• Blend by volume of fine aggregates totaling 100.0%, and
• Amount of –0.075-mm material desired in the combined blend, if MF or bag
house fines are being used.
FIGURE 5 Rodded unit weight of fine aggregate.
An example design is presented in the section on page 24, which provides the step-by-
step calculations required to blend a set of aggregates by volume and determine the resulting
combined blend by weight. Developing a computer spreadsheet to perform these calculations is
relatively simple. This allows the designer to vary the inputs for the above listed data so
iterations can be made quickly to review multiple blends.
The following steps are presented to provide a general sense of blending aggregates by
volume.
1. Pick a chosen unit weight for the coarse aggregates, kg/m3.

2. Calculate the volume of voids in the coarse aggregates at the chosen unit weight.
3. Determine the amount of fine aggregate to fill this volume using the fine aggregates
rodded unit weight, kg/m3.
4. Using the weight (density) in kg/m3 of each aggregate, determine the total weight and
convert to individual aggregate blend percentages.
5. Correct the coarse aggregates for the amount of fine aggregate they contain and the
fine aggregates for the amount of coarse aggregate they contain, in order to maintain the desired
blend by volume of coarse and fine aggregate.
6. Determine the adjusted blend percentages of each aggregate by weight.
7. If MF or bag house fines are to be used, adjust the fine aggregate percentages by the
desired amount of fines to maintain the desired blend by volume of coarse and fine aggregate.
8. Determine the revised individual aggregate percentages by weight for use in
calculating the combined blend.
Analysis of the Design Blend

After the combined gradation by weight is determined, the aggregate packing is analyzed further.
The combined blend is broken down into three distinct portions, and each portion is evaluated
individually. The coarse portion of the combined blend is from the largest particle to the PCS.
These particles are considered the coarse aggregates of the blend.
The fine aggregate is broken down and evaluated as two portions. To determine where to
split the fine aggregate, the same 0.22 factor used on the entire gradation is applied to the PCS to
determine a secondary control sieve (SCS). The SCS then becomes the break between coarse
sand and fine sand. The fine sand is further evaluated by determining the tertiary control sieve
(TCS), which is determined by multiplying the SCS by the 0.22 factor. A schematic of how the
gradation is divided into the three portions is given in Figure 6.
An analysis is done using ratios that evaluate packing within each of the three portions of
the combined aggregate gradation. Three ratios are defined: Coarse Aggregate Ratio (CA Ratio),
Fine Aggregate Coarse Ratio (FAc Ratio), and Fine Aggregate Fine Ratio (FAf Ratio).
These ratios characterize packing of the aggregates. By changing gradation within each
portion modifications can be made to the volumetric properties, construction characteristics, or
performance characteristics of the asphalt mixture.
CA Ratio
The CA Ratio is used to evaluate packing of the coarse portion of the aggregate gradation and to
analyze the resulting void structure. Understanding the packing of coarse aggregate requires the
introduction of the half sieve. The half sieve is defined as one half the NMPS. Particles smaller
than the half sieve are called “interceptors.” Interceptors are too large to fit in the voids created
by the larger coarse aggregate particles and hence spread them apart. The balance of these
particles can be used to adjust the mixture’s volumetric properties. By changing the quantity of
interceptors it is possible to change the VMA in the mixture to produce a balanced coarse
aggregate structure. With a balanced aggregate structure the mixture should be easy to compact
in the field and should adequately perform under load.
The equation for the calculation of the coarse aggregate ratio is given in Equation 2.
(% Passing Half Sieve − % Passing PCS)

CA Ratio = (2)
(100% − % Passing Half Sieve)
The packing of the coarse aggregate fraction, observed through the CA Ratio, is a
primary factor in the constructability of the mixture. As the CA Ratio decreases (below ~1.0),
compaction of the fine aggregate fraction increases because there are fewer interceptors to limit
compaction of the larger coarse aggregate particles (2). Therefore, a mixture with a low CA
Coarse Aggregate
PCS
Primary Control Sieve
Coarse Portion of Fine Aggregate
SCS
Fine Portion of Fine Aggregate
FIGURE 6 Overview of the divisions in a continuous gradation

that allows an analysis of gradation.
TABLE 1 Recommended Ranges of Aggregate Ratios

NMPS, mm
37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75
CA Ratio 0.80–0.95 0.70–0.85 0.60–0.75 0.50–0.65 0.40–0.55 0.30–0.45
FAc Ratio 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50
FAf Ratio 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50
NOTE: FAc = fine aggregate coarse; FAf = fine aggregate fine. These ranges provide a starting point where no prior
experience exists for a given set of aggregates. If the designer has acceptable existing designs, they should be evaluated to
determine a narrower range to target for future designs (see Evaluating Existing Mixture Designs with the Bailey Method).
Ratio typically requires a stronger fine aggregate structure to meet the required
volumetric properties. Also, a CA Ratio below the corresponding range suggested in Table 1
could indicate a blend that may be prone to segregation. It is generally accepted that gap-graded
mixes, which tend to have CA Ratios below these suggested ranges, have a greater tendency to
segregate than mixes that contain a more continuous gradation.
As the CA Ratio increases towards 1.0, VMA will increase. However, as this value
approaches 1.0, the coarse aggregate fraction becomes “unbalanced” because the interceptor size
aggregates are attempting to control the coarse aggregate skeleton. Although this blend may not
be as prone to segregation, it contains such a large quantity of interceptors that the coarse
aggregate fraction causes the portion above the PCS to be less continuous. The resulting mixture
can be difficult to compact in the field and have a tendency to move under the rollers because it
does not want to “lock up.” Generally, mixes with high CA Ratios have a S-shaped gradation
curve in this area of the 0.45-power grading chart. Superpave mixtures of this type have
developed a reputation for being difficult to compact.
As the CA Ratio exceeds a value of 1.0, the interceptor-sized particles begin to dominate
the formation of the coarse aggregate skeleton. The coarse portion of the coarse aggregate is then
considered “pluggers,” as these aggregates do not control the aggregate skeleton, but rather float
in a matrix of finer coarse aggregate particles.
Coarse Portion of Fine Aggregate

All of the fine aggregate (i.e., below the PCS) can be viewed as a blend by itself that contains a
coarse and a fine portion and can be evaluated in a manner similar to the overall blend. The
coarse portion of the fine aggregate creates voids that will be filled with the fine portion of the
fine aggregate. As with the coarse aggregate, it is desired to fill these voids with the appropriate
volume of the fine portion of the fine aggregate without overfilling the voids.
The equation that describes the fine aggregate coarse ratio (FAc) is given in Equation 3. As this
ratio increases, the fine aggregate (i.e., below the PCS) packs together tighter. This increase in
packing is due to the increase in volume of the fine portion of fine aggregate. It is generally
desirable to have this ratio less than 0.50, as higher values generally indicate an excessive
amount of the fine portion of the fine aggregate is included in the mixture. A FAc Ratio higher
than 0.50, which is created by an excessive amount of natural sand and/or an excessively fine
natural sand should be avoided. This type of a blend normally shows a “hump” in the sand
portion of the gradation curve of a 0.45 gradation chart, which is generally accepted as an
indication of a potentially tender mixture.
The equation for the calculation of the FAc Ratio is given in Equation 3.
% Passing SCS
FAc = (3)
% Passing PCS
If the FAc Ratio becomes lower than the range of values in Table 1, the gradation is not
uniform. These mixtures are generally gap-graded and have a “belly” in the 0.45-power grading
chart, which can indicate instability and may lead to compaction problems. This ratio has a
considerable impact on the VMA of a mixture due to the blending of sands and the creation of
voids in the fine aggregate. The VMA in the mixture will increase with a decrease in this ratio.
Fine Portion of Fine Aggregate

The fine portion of the fine aggregate fills the voids created by the coarse portion of the fine
aggregate. This ratio shows how the fine portion of the fine aggregate packs together. One more
sieve is needed to calculate the FAf, the TCS. The TCS is defined as the closest sieve to 0.22
times the SCS. The equation for the FAf Ratio is given in Equation 4.
% Passing TCS
FA f = (4)
% Passing SCS
The FAf Ratio is used to evaluate the packing characteristics of the smallest portion of the
aggregate blend. Similar to the FAc Ratio, the value of the FAf Ratio should be less than 0.50 for
typical dense-graded mixtures. VMA in the mixture will increase with a decrease in this ratio.
Summary of Ratios
• CA Ratio—This ratio describes how the coarse aggregate particles pack together and,
consequently, how these particles compact the fine aggregate portion of the aggregate blend that
fills the voids created by the coarse aggregate.
• FAc Ratio—This ratio describes how the coarse portion of the fine aggregate packs
together and, consequently, how these particles compact the material that fills the voids it
creates.
• FAf Ratio—This ratio describes how the fine portion of the fine aggregate packs
together. It also influences the voids that will remain in the overall fine aggregate portion of the
blend because it represents the particles that fill the smallest voids created.
These ratios are valuable for evaluating and adjusting VMA. Once an initial trial
gradation is evaluated in the laboratory, other gradations can be evaluated on paper to choose a
second trial that will have an increased or decreased VMA as desired. When doing the paper
analysis, the designer must remember that changes in particle shape, strength and texture must be
considered as well. The ratios are calculated from the control sieves of an asphalt mixture, which
are tied to the NMPS. Table 2 provides the listing of control sieves for various asphalt mixture
sizes. The values in determining the aggregate ratios are the percent passing the control sieves
for the final combined blend. The recommended range for the ratios is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 2 Control Sieves for Various Asphalt Mixes

NMPS, mm
37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75
Half Sieve 19.0 12.5 9.5 ** 4.75 2.36
PCS 9.5 4.75 4.75 2.36 2.36 1.18
SCS 2.36 1.18 1.18 0.60 0.60 0.30
TCS 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.150 0.150 0.075
** The nearest “typical” half sieve for a 12.5-mm NMPS mixture is the 4.75 mm. However, the 6.25 mm sieve
actually serves as the breakpoint. Interpolating the percent passing value for the 6.25-mm sieve for use in the CA
Ratio will provide a more representative ratio value.
Effect of Chosen Unit Weight Changes

Changing the chosen unit weight of the coarse aggregate will have a significant effect on the
volumetric properties of the HMA mixture. Increasing the chosen unit weight above the loose
unit weight will cause an increase in the air voids and VMA of the resulting mixture. The air
voids increase because of additional volume of coarse aggregate in the mixture, which increases
aggregate interlock and resists compaction.
The actual amount of increase in VMA with changes in chosen unit weight will depend
on aggregate shape and texture. In a mixture with a coarse aggregate skeleton an increase of 5%
in the chosen unit weight will increase VMA by 0.5 to 1.0%. In a fine-graded mixture (chosen
weight less than 90% of loose unit weight) changes in the chosen unit weight will not have a
significant effect on VMA because there is no coarse aggregate skeleton.
Chosen Unit Weight VMA

increases increases
Increases in the chosen unit weight will also affect the compactability of the mixture,
both in the lab and in the field. As the chosen unit weight is increased, additional coarse
aggregate is designed in the blend. This additional volume of coarse aggregate locks together
under compactive effort and resists compaction. High chosen unit weight values may lead to
strong mixes in the lab and field, but will be difficult to construct if taken too far.
Changing the chosen unit weight changes the percent passing the PCS in the final
combined blend. During production extreme care should be taken to maintain consistency in the
percent passing the PCS, especially for coarse-graded mixtures. Swings in the percent passing
the PCS will cause changes in the degree of coarse aggregate interlock, the amount of voids, and
constructability of the mixture. Changes to the percent passing the PCS are effectively changing
the chosen unit weight. Deliberate change to the chosen unit weight during construction is an
appropriate method to change the constructability of the mixture.
Effect of CA Ratio Changes

The CA Ratio has a significant effect on the volumetric properties of the HMA mixture. This
ratio describes the balance between the larger particles and the interceptor particles in the coarse
portion of the aggregate structure. Changes in this balance change the compactability of the
mixture in both the lab and field conditions.
An increase in the CA Ratio will cause a corresponding increase in the air voids and
VMA. This increase happens because more interceptor-sized aggregate particles are in the coarse
portion of the aggregate structure, helping it to resist densification.
The actual amount of increase in VMA with changes in coarse aggregate ratio will
depend on aggregate shape and texture. In coarse-graded mixtures an increase of 0.2 in the CA
Ratio will create an increase of 0.5 to 1.0% VMA.
CA Ratio VMA
increases increases
In addition to the effect on the volumetrics, the CA Ratio can indicate possible
construction problems. If the CA Ratio is too low, the mixture will be prone to segregation.
Segregation causes the road to have areas of excess coarse aggregate, which will decrease the
service life of the asphalt pavement. If the CA Ratio nears or goes above 1.0, the coarse
aggregate region of the blend becomes unbalanced and neither size (large particles or
interceptors) is controlling the coarse aggregate structure. This may cause the mixture to move
during compaction, allowing the mat to widen.
CA Ratio Segregation Potential

decreases increases
Effect of FAc and FAf Ratio Changes

The FA Ratios have an effect on the volumetric properties of the HMA mixture. Increases in
these ratios cause a decrease in the air voids and VMA in the mixture. As these ratios increase,
the packing of the fine aggregates becomes more dense and the voids in the mixture decrease.
The actual amount of increase in VMA with changes in FAc Ratio will depend on aggregate
shape and texture. An decrease of 0.05 in the FAc of FAf Ratio will create an increase of 0.5 to
1.0% VMA.
FA Ratios VMA
increases decreases
Four Bailey Method Parameters

The design and analysis of an aggregate blend using the Bailey Method of gradation selection is
built on four parameters:
• Chosen unit weight describes interlock of the coarse aggregate.

• CA Ratio describes gradation of the coarse aggregate.
• FAc Ratio describes the gradation of the coarse portion of the fine aggregate.
• FAf Ratio describes the gradation of the fine portion of the fine aggregate.
Changes to any of these parameters will affect the air voids, VMA, constructability, and
performance of the resulting asphalt mixture. These changes are the same whether the change is
made in the laboratory during design or the field during construction.
When making changes to stockpile blends, the designer must be aware that often there is
more than one effect on the Bailey parameters. Each of the parameters will tend to act
independently to change the VMA. If different parameters cause changes in opposite directions
the result will be the net effect. An example is shown in Table 3.
When making changes to gradation, the designer must be aware of the effect of changing
other aggregate properties such as shape, texture, or hardness, i.e. decreasing the amount of
natural sand, increasing the amount of manufactured sand, or increasing the amount of soft
aggregate in the blend.
TABLE 3 Combined Effect of Changes in Bailey Parameters

Before After Result
PCS value 38% 38% No change
CA Ratio 0.76 0.56 Lower VMA
FAc Ratio 0.55 0.50 Increased VMA
FAf Ratio 0.47 0.46 Little to no change
Net Result Little, if any, change in VMA
Bailey Method Principles and Fine-Graded Mixes
I n a coarse-graded HMA, coarse aggregate interlock plays a significant role in resisting

permanent deformation. However, in fine-graded mixes, the fine aggregate plays the
predominant role in resisting permanent deformation.
The Bailey Method evaluates the aggregate packing characteristics of the entire blend.
Fine-graded mixes generally are defined as combined aggregate blends that plot above the
maximum density line on a 0.45 gradation curve. As defined by the Bailey Method, the primary
difference between coarse-graded and fine-graded mixes is the portion of the aggregate structure
that carries the load and controls VMA. From the Bailey Method perspective, fine-graded mixes
contain a volume of fine aggregate that exceeds the volume of voids in the coarse aggregate
loose unit weight condition.
VOLUME OF FINE AGGREGATE

With a coarse-graded mixture, the coarse aggregate plays a significant role in the compaction of
the fine aggregate. However, with a fine-graded mixture, the coarse aggregate particles are
floating in the fine aggregate structure. Since the coarse aggregate particles are not touching,
VMA is primarily controlled by the fine aggregate.
Within the Bailey Method, raising or lowering the chosen unit weight of the coarse
aggregates in the mixture changes both the relative volume of coarse aggregate and fine
aggregate. As the chosen unit weight of the coarse aggregates decreases, the volume of fine
aggregate increases. With fine-graded mixtures, as the volume of fine aggregate increases, VMA
will increase.
THE TWO-PART PROCESS

Developing the combined blend of a fine-graded mixture using the Bailey Method principles is a
two-part process. The initial process involves utilizing a chosen unit weight for the coarse
aggregate(s) that is below the loose unit weight (90% or less). With this type of mixture the
coarse aggregates (i.e., particles larger than the PCS) do not form a skeleton because they are not
touching consistently and therefore are floating in a matrix of fine aggregate.
The second part of the process evaluates the combined blend gradation below the original
PCS as an entire blend by itself. The portion below the original PCS is converted to 100%
passing this sieve and is then evaluated as a blend of coarse and fine aggregate with a NMPS
equal to the original PCS. A new PCS is then determined, along with a corresponding half sieve,
SCS and TCS.
DETERMINING THE NEW RATIOS

Table 4 shows the new control sieves corresponding to the mixture NMPS and original PCS.
The new ratios can be calculated for the fine aggregate portion (100% passing the
original PCS) using the formulas provided in the previous section and Equation 1 through
Equation 3. Table 5 provides the ratios in relation to the NMPS for a fine-graded mixture and the
sieves listed in the equations represent the percent passing for the newly calculated blend of the
fine aggregate portion.
17
TABLE 4 Fine-Graded Mixture Control Sieves

NMPS, mm
37.5 25.0 19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75
Original PCS 9.5 4.75 4.75 2.36 2.36 1.18
New Half Sieve 4.75 2.36 2.36 1.18 1.18 0.60
New PCS 2.36 1.18 1.18 0.60 0.60 0.30
New SCS 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.150 0.150 0.075
New TCS 0.150 0.075 0.075 — — —
TABLE 5 Aggregate Ratios for the Adjusted Blend for Fine-Graded Mixtures
Ratio
NMPS, mm
CA FAc FAf
4.75–2.36 0.60 0.150
37.5
100%–4.75 2.36 0.60
2.36–1.18 0.30 0.075

25.0
100%–2.36 1.18 0.30
2.36–1.18 0.30 0.075

19.0
100%–2.36 1.18 0.30
1.18–0.60 0.150
12.5 **
100%–1.18 0.60
1.18–0.60 0.150
9.5 **
100%–1.18 0.60
0.60–0.30 0.075
4.75 **
100%–0.60 0.30
** For these mixes, only the new CA and FAc Ratios can be determined.
As for coarse-graded mixtures, changes in the new ratios for fine-graded mixtures create
similar results in regards to the VMA. See the previous section for further discussion. Of these three
new ratios, changes in the FAc Ratio will have the most influence in altering the VMA. The
following guidance is provided when the percent volume of fine aggregate remains constant in the
entire blend.
• As the new CA Ratio increases, VMA will increase. The range should be 0.6–1.0. In
fine-graded mixtures the CA Ratio tends to be more variable than in coarse-graded mixtures;
therefore, the recommended range is wider.
• As the new FAc Ratio decreases, VMA will increase. The range should be 0.35–0.50.
• As the new FAf Ratio decreases, VMA will increase. The range should be 0.35–0.50.
The ranges provide a starting point where no prior experience exists for a given set of
aggregates. If the designer has acceptable existing designs, they should be evaluated to determine
a narrower range to target for future designs (see Evaluating Existing Mixture Designs with the
Bailey Method, page 22).
Bailey Method Principles and SMA Mixes
T he Bailey Method principle of deriving resistance to permanent deformation from coarse

aggregate interlock is further enhanced with SMA mixes. To achieve the degree of coarse
aggregate interlock desired with SMA, the rodded unit weight, which is performed for each
individual coarse aggregate as described in What Is the Bailey Method?, is used as the reference
for the chosen unit weight. With multiple coarse aggregates, the Bailey Method combines them
by volume mathematically using the corresponding chosen unit weights and the desired overall
blend by volume of the coarse aggregates.
However, to ensure compliance with specifications that require the VCA of the mixture
to be equal to or less than the VCA in the DRC, the designer must determine the actual VCA of
the dry rodded coarse aggregate for a given blend. In general, this consists of physically blending
the coarse fraction (i.e., retained on the PCS) in the lab, performing a test in accordance with
AASHTO T-19: Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate, using the rodding procedure and
determining a combined bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregate for use in calculating the
VCADRC.
The volume of coarse aggregate has the most influence on the VCA of the mixture and the
VMA achieved. Strength of the coarse aggregate particles is very important in maintaining the
degree of coarse aggregate interlock desired without degradation occurring under compaction. Weak
coarse aggregate will break in the compaction mold or under rollers. Table 6 provides the listing of
control sieves for various SMA sizes.
The 12.5-mm NMPS SMA appears to be the most common size in the United States.
Research to date has shown the importance of using the 6.25-mm sieve as the half sieve to accurately
indicate changes in the coarse aggregate fraction of the mixture. It is also recommended that the 2.36-
mm sieve be used as the PCS or breakpoint between the coarse and fine aggregate for this mixture
size as well (12). The predominant influence of the 4.75- to 2.36-mm sized material appears to be
more related to the amount of degradation that does or does not occur.
The chosen unit weight for the coarse aggregates should be 110% to 125% of their
corresponding rodded unit weight and the chosen unit weight of the fine aggregate(s) should be
the corresponding loose unit weight. In reference to What Is the Bailey Method?, the only
difference in determining the loose unit weight of fine aggregate is that the shoveling procedure
is used as described in AASHTO T-19: Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate, in lieu of the
TABLE 6 Control Sieves for SMA Mixtures

NMPS, mm
19.0 12.5 9.5 4.75
Half Sieve 9.5 ** 4.75 2.36
PCS 4.75 2.36 2.36 1.18
SCS 1.18 0.60 0.60 0.30
TCS 0.30 0.150 0.150 0.075
** The nearest “typical” half sieve for 12.5-mm NMPS mixture is 4.75 mm. However, the 6.25-mm sieve actually
serves as the breakpoint. Interpolating the percent passing value for the 6.25-mm sieve for us in the CA Ratio will
provide a more representative ratio value.
19
rodding procedure. The fine aggregate fraction should not interfere with the compaction of the
coarse aggregate structure.
As previously described in What Is the Bailey Method, ratios are used to evaluate the
blend gradation for increased understanding of the overall aggregate packing characteristics. The
effects of the three ratios (CA, FAc, and FAf) create similar effects in the aggregate packing of a
SMA as with coarse-graded mixes.
Of the three ratios, changes in the FAc Ratio shows the most influence in altering the
VMA. The following guidance is provided considering the volume of fine aggregate remains
constant in the entire blend.
• As the CA Ratio increases, VMA will increase.

• As the FAc Ratio decreases, VMA will increase.
• As the FAf Ratio decreases, VMA will increase.
The designer should determine these ratio values for any existing SMA designs and
compare them with the suggested ranges shown in Table 7 (see Evaluating the Existing Mixture
Designs with the Bailey Method, page 22).
The FAf Ratio is predominantly a function of the amount of MF used and its
corresponding gradation. Although most SMA specifications provide an allowable range for the
–0.075-mm material in the blend, there appears to be an optimum amount of this material. If too
little is used, although within the specification limits, the filler effect in reducing voids and
mortar stiffness will be insufficient. However, if too much is used, although within
specifications, the material serves to create unnecessarily high stiffness in the mortar. Although
this is a very general view concerning the influence of filler material in a SMA mixture, the
designer should be cautious when making significant alterations in the FAf Ratio to increase or
decrease VMA since it can also have a significant impact on the stiffness of the mortar.
TABLE 7 Recommended Ranges for Aggregate Ratios in SMA Mixtures

NMPS
19.0 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm
CA Ratio 0.35–0.50 0.25–0.40 0.15–0.30
FAc Ratio 0.60–0.85 0.60–0.85 0.60–0.85
FAf Ratio 0.65–0.90 0.60–0.85 0.60–0.85
Use of Recycled Asphalt Pavement
A mixture containing RAP can be designed with the Bailey Method using the same principles
as a mixture design with new aggregates. The approach as outlined may not work for
mixtures with a high percentage of RAP (about 40% or more). The Bailey Method may be used
for mixtures with a high percentage of RAP, but the mixture VMA may not move with the
chosen unit weight and the aggregate ratios because the RAP is overpowering the new
aggregates. In such a case, the designer will need evaluate the mixture based on experience, the
method most likely in current use.
The Bailey Method evaluation is done with the new aggregates only, and the designer
selects a chosen unit weight to establishes the volume of coarse aggregate in the mixture, the
degree of coarse aggregate interlock, and the corresponding volume of fine aggregate. The ratios
are calculated to ensure that they are within the acceptable ranges for the corresponding mixture
size and type (see Table 1, page 12, and the corresponding discussion in Bailey Method
Principles and Fine-Graded Mixes).
After calculating the Bailey properties with the new aggregates, the desired percentage of
RAP is added and the new aggregate percentages are altered such that the new combined blend
containing RAP has the same percent passing the PCS as the original blend with the new
aggregates. The percent passing the PCS should stay approximately the same with the inclusion
of RAP in order to maintain the desired split of coarse and fine aggregate. The gradation used for
the RAP is typically determined by solvent extraction.
When evaluating a trial blend with RAP (prior to lab work), the three aggregate ratios of
the new RAP blend are compared to those of the new aggregate blend. As previously mentioned,
it is important to maintain approximately the same PCS value. Also, RAP generally contains
both coarse and fine aggregate. This will generally change all three ratio values, even when the
PCS is approximately the same as the new aggregate blend. Compare the changes created to the
ratios from the addition of the RAP and consider how this may alter the volumetric properties of
the proposed RAP blend. Additional changes may be necessary to the RAP blend to meet the
volumetric specifications required for a given mixture design.
Other things to consider when using RAP include:
• What are the individual characteristics of the RAP aggregates?

• Has the RAP been processed in a way that may have changed any of the aggregate
characteristics?
The basic premise when using a RAP mixture is to consider the volume of coarse and
fine aggregate and how that relates to compactability characteristics. To estimate this accurately,
a blend with new aggregates must first be considered. The volume of coarse aggregate in the
RAP blend determines whether the blend is coarse-graded or fine-graded and the degree of
coarse aggregate interlock expected. The three ratios play the same role in volumetrics and
compactability.
21
Evaluating Existing Mixture Designs with the Bailey Method
T his section addresses the evaluation of existing dense-graded asphalt mixes using the Bailey
Method. Experience is extremely valuable when selecting an aggregate blend that meets
volumetric requirements, that will also be reproducible in production, easy to place and compact,
and provide acceptable long-term in-place performance. History, both good and bad, provides
seasoned designers with a safety factor of what to expect after choosing an aggregate blend
gradation.
When starting with the Bailey Method, it is suggested the designer closely review
existing mixture designs with the following evaluation procedures to better define acceptable
ranges to work within for their specific aggregates. Generally, experienced designers have a few
mixes that have worked extremely well during production and placement, and a few others that
proved to be much harder to reproduce and/or place in the field. These mixes in particular should
be reviewed from the Bailey Method perspective to provide guidance on acceptable chosen unit
weight values and ratio ranges and to also help determine why they did or did not work well
during production and/or placement.
The calculations to evaluate a blend are shown in Example Bailey Method Design
Calculations. Although these calculations can be done manually using a calculator, it is
recommended that the user construct a spreadsheet to do the calculations. To evaluate an existing
design, the user must estimate some of the input variables and compare the calculated gradation
with the actual gradation. Adjustments are made to the input variables until the calculated and
actual gradations are as close as possible. This process would be time consuming without a
spreadsheet.
The three input variables to be estimated are:
• Chosen unit weight of each coarse aggregate in relation to its corresponding loose
unit weight;
• Volume of coarse aggregate;
• Volume of fine aggregate; and
• After the user has adjusted the input variables to obtain a calculated gradation that
matches the design gradation, the three Bailey ratios (CA, FAc, and FAf), which have been
calculated for the mix, are available. By evaluating several mixtures the designer can see the
Bailey parameters for the mixtures currently in use.
EVALUATING CONVENTIONAL DENSE-GRADED

HMA DESIGNS WITH NO RECYCLED ASPHALT PAVEMENT
This method of evaluation can be used for either coarse-graded or fine-graded mixtures without
differentiation. One of the input variables the designer will estimate is the chosen weight. At the
end of the evaluation, if the chosen weight is less than 95% of loose unit weight, the mix will
have been determined to be fine-graded. The mixture is to be evaluated as follows:
1. Obtain representative samples of each aggregate used in the original design. Particle
shape, surface texture, gradation, and bulk specific gravity of each aggregate should be as close
as possible to what was used originally. If the designer feels there is a significant difference in an
22
Evaluating Existing Mixture Designs with the Bailey Method 23
aggregate in regards to one or more of these properties, appropriate steps should be taken to
obtain more representative material. If that is not possible, it must be understood that this can
significantly affect the final evaluation.
2. Determine the loose and rodded unit weights for each coarse aggregate and the
rodded unit weight for each fine aggregate by performing the appropriate lab tests presented
earlier.
3. Enter the corresponding unit weights (loose and rodded for coarse and rodded for
fine) in the user spreadsheet.
4. Enter the original design gradation and bulk specific gravity for each individual
aggregate in the user spreadsheet. These properties must be very similar to the current aggregate
samples used for the loose and rodded unit weight tests mentioned in Step 2.
5. Enter the corresponding rodded unit weight for each fine aggregate as the chosen unit
weight in the user spreadsheet
6. As a starting point, select the loose unit weight for each coarse aggregate as the
chosen unit weight.
7. Estimate the blend by volume for the coarse aggregates and enter the percentage of
each. Normally, the blend by weight (as 100% coarse aggregate) can be used as a starting point,
unless there are significant differences in bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregates involved.
8. Estimate the blend by volume for the fine aggregates and enter the percentage of
each. Normally, the blend by weight (as 100% fine aggregate) can be used as a starting point,
unless there are significant differences in bulk specific gravity of the fine aggregates involved.
9. Enter the amount of –0.075 mm corresponding to the original design blend. This
value may need to be altered by a few tenths of a percent later to match the design. At this point,
the spreadsheet should have calculated the combined blend.
10. Adjust the blend by volume of the coarse aggregates and/or fine aggregates to get the
individual aggregate percentages by weight closer to the original design values.
11. Increase or decrease the percentage of the loose unit weight (i.e., chosen unit weight)
for the coarse aggregates to get the percent passing the PCS closer to the original design value.
12. Always leave the chosen unit weight of the fine aggregates at their respective rodded
unit weight, even if this means selecting a chosen unit weight of the coarse aggregates below the
loose unit weight.
13. Most designs will take several iterations to the variables that can be changed but the
designer should be able to get the individual aggregate percentages to within a few tenths of a
percent of the original design.
EVALUATING DENSE-GRADED DESIGNS CONTAINING RAP

For reviewing an existing design containing RAP, the steps outlined earlier for virgin blends
should be followed using only the virgin aggregates, to determine a combined blend gradation
that closely matches the RAP blend, especially in percent passing the PCS. Although the
designer should get the entire combined blend of the virgin aggregates as close as possible, there
will be some sieve values that are different since the RAP gradation is not included. The desired
result for the RAP design evaluation is to accurately establish the volumes of coarse aggregate,
fine aggregate, and the relationship between the coarse aggregate chosen unit weights to the
coarse aggregate loose unit weights, to relate to compactability of the mixture, along with
reviewing the three ratio values.
Example Bailey Method Design Calculations
BAILEY METHOD BLENDING EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS

The calculations in Figure 7 provide an example of a design using two coarse aggregates, one
fine aggregate, and MF. This design uses aggregates of different specific gravity to show how
aggregates are blended together by volume.
The designer will need to collect information including:
• Stockpile gradation, and bulk specific gravity, and

• Loose and rodded unit weights (AASHTO T-19).
In addition the designer will make several decisions that will determine the stockpile
splits. These items include:
• Chosen unit weight as a percentage of the loose unit weight;

• Desired percent passing 0.075-mm sieve;
• Blend by volume of coarse aggregates; and
• Blend by volume of fine aggregates.
Step 1
Determine the chosen unit of weight for each aggregate according to the loose unit weight for
each coarse aggregate and the overall coarse aggregate chosen unit weight for the mixture. The
chosen unit weight for the fine aggregates is simply the rodded weight of that aggregate.
Calculation
Multiply the loose unit weight percent for each coarse aggregate by the coarse aggregate chosen
unit weight for the mixture.
Equation
Coarse aggregate chosen unit weight = loose unit weight ∗ desired percent of loose unit weight
CA # 1: Chosen unit weight = 1425 kg/m3 ∗ 103% = 1469 kg/m3 (1a)
CA # 2: Chosen unit weight = 1400 kg/m3 ∗ 103% = 1441 kg/m3 (1b)
Step 2
Determine the unit weight contributed by each coarse aggregate according to the desired
proportions (by volume) of coarse aggregate.
Calculation
Multiply the blend percent of coarse aggregate by the chosen unit weight of each aggregate.
24
Example Bailey Method Design Calculations 25
Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate Mineral

Number Number Filler
CA-1 CA-2 CA-3 FA-1 FA-2 FA-3
Material Grade Coarse Intermediate Slag MF
Sand
Design Value Specification

CA Chosen Weight as % of 103 95 – 105
Loose Weight
Desired % Pass 0.075 mm 4.5 3.5 – 6.0
Coarse Aggregate Blend by Volume Fine Aggregate Blend by Volume

25.0 75.0 100.0
Above blending % must 100.0 Above blending % must 100.0
sum to 100 sum to 100
Total Volume of Coarse 53.7

Combined Bulk Specific Aggregate
Gravity of All Aggregates
2.888 Total Volume of Fine 46.3
Aggregate
Aggregate Properties
19.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 94.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
9.5 38.0 99.0 100.0 100.0
4.75 3.0 30.0 99.0 100.0
2.36 1.9 5.0 79.9 100.0
1.18 1.8 2.5 48.8 100.0
0.60 1.8 1.9 29.0 100.0
0.30 1.8 1.4 14.2 100.0
0.15 1.8 1.3 8.8 98.0
0.075 1.7 1.2 3.0 90.0
Bulk Spec. Gr. 2.702 2.698 3.162 3.162 2.806

Apparent Gr. 2.812 2.812 3.600 3.600 2.806
% Absorp. 1.452 1.502 3.844 3.844
Loose Weight 1426 1400

3
kg/m
Rodded Weight 1608 1592 2167 2167
3
kg/m
FIGURE 7 An example of a design using two coarse aggregates,

one fine aggregate, and MF.
Equation
Contribution = percent coarse aggregate ∗ chosen unit weight
CA # 1: Contribution = 25% ∗ 1469 kg/m3 = 367 kg/m3 (2a)
CA # 2: Contribution = 75% ∗ 1441 kg/m3 = 1081 kg/m3 (2b)
Step 3
Determine the voids in each coarse aggregate according to its corresponding chosen unit weight
and contribution by volume. Then sum the voids contributed by each coarse aggregate.
Calculation
First calculate one minus the chosen unit weight divided by the bulk specific gravity and density
of water. Multiply the result by the percent of coarse aggregate blend. Then, sum the contribution
of each coarse aggregate.
Equation
 chosen unit weight 
Voids in coarse aggregate = 1 −  ∗ Blend %

 G sb ∗ 1000 
Where Gsb = bulk specific gravity.
 1468 
CA #1: Voids in CA #1 = 1 −  ∗ 25.0 = 11.4 (3a)
 2.702 ∗ 1000 
 1441 
CA #2: Voids in CA #2 = 1 −  ∗ 75.0 = 34.9 (3b)
 2.698 ∗ 1000 
Total: Voids in CA #1 + Voids in CA #2 = 11.4 + 34.9 = 46.3 (3c)
Step 4
Determine the unit weight contributed by each fine aggregate according to the desired volume
blend of fine aggregate. This is the unit weight that fills the voids in the coarse aggregate.
Calculation
Multiply the fine aggregate chosen unit weight by the volume percentage of this aggregate in the
fine aggregate blend and multiply this by the total percentage of coarse aggregate voids from (3c).
Equation
Contribution of each fine aggregate = fine aggregate chosen unit weight ∗ % fine aggregate
blend ∗ % voids in coarse aggregate.
FA #1: Contribution = 2167 kg/m3 ∗ 100% ∗ 46.3% = 1002 kg/m3 (4)

Note: If there is more than one fine aggregate the calculation is repeated for each fine aggregate.
Step 5
Determine the unit weight for the total aggregate blend.
Calculation
Sum the unit weight of each aggregate.
Equation
Unit weight of blend = (2a) + (2b) + (4)
Unit weight of blend = 367 kg/m3 + 1081 kg/m3 + 1002 kg/m3 = 2450 kg/m3 (5)
Step 6
Determine the initial blend percentage by weight of each aggregate.
Calculation
Divide the unit weight of each aggregate by the unit weight of the total aggregate blend.
Equation
Percent by weight = unit weight of aggregate/unit weight of blend
CA #1: % by weight = 367 kg/m3 / 2450 kg/m3 = 0.150 = 15.0 % (6a)
CA #2: % by weight = 1081 kg/m3 / 2450 kg/m3 = 0.441 = 44.1 % (6b)
FA #1: % by weight = 1002 kg/m3 / 2450 kg/m3 = 0.409 = 40.9 % (6c)
These initial estimates of stockpile splits are based on the choice of how much coarse
aggregate to have in the mixture. The initial estimates of stockpile splits will be adjusted to
account for fine aggregate particles in the coarse aggregate stockpiles and coarse aggregate
particles in the fine aggregate stockpiles.
Step 7
In a 12.5-mm NMPS mixture, the CA/FA break (PCS) is the 2.36-mm sieve.
Calculation
For the coarse aggregate stockpiles, determine the percent passing the 2.36-mm sieve. For the
fine aggregate stockpiles, determine the percent retained on the 2.36-mm sieve.
CA #1: % fine aggregate = 1.9% (7a)
CA #2: % fine aggregate = 5.0% (7b)
FA #1: % coarse aggregate = 100.0% – 79.9% = 20.1% (7c)

Step 8
Determine the fine aggregate in each coarse stockpile according to its percentage in the blend.
Calculation
For each coarse aggregate stockpile determine the percent passing the 2.36-mm sieve as a
percentage of the total aggregate blend.
Equation
Percent fine aggregate in blend = Coarse stockpile percent of blend ∗ percent fine aggregate in
coarse stockpile.
CA #1: Percent fine aggregate in blend = 15.0% ∗ 1.9% = 0.3% (8a)
CA #2: Percent fine aggregate in blend = 44.1% ∗ 5.0% = 2.2% (8b)
Step 9
Sum the percent of fine aggregate particles in all the coarse aggregate stockpiles.
All CAs: Percent fine aggregate in blend = 0.3% + 2.2% = 2.5% (9)
Step 10
Determine the coarse aggregate in each fine stockpile according to its percentage in the blend.
Calculation
For each fine aggregate stockpile determine the percent retained on the 2.36-mm sieve as a
percentage of the total aggregate blend.
Equation
Percent coarse aggregate in blend = Stockpile percent of blend ∗ percent coarse aggregate in fine
stockpile.
FA #1: Percent coarse aggregate in blend = 40.9% ∗ 20.1% = 8.2% (10)
Step 11
Sum the percent of fine aggregate particles in all the coarse aggregate stockpiles.
All FAs: Percent fine aggregate in blend = 8.2% (11)
Step 12
Correct the initial blend percentage of each coarse aggregate to account for the amount of fine
aggregate it contains and coarse aggregate contributed by the fine aggregate stockpiles.
Equation
 initial % ∗ Sum CA in FA 
Adjusted stockpile percent in blend = (initial %) + (FA in CA) –  
 Total % of CA 
CA #1:
 15.0 % ∗ 8.2 % 
Adjusted stockpile percent in blend = (15.0%) + (0.3%) –   = 13.2% (12a)
 15.0 % + 44.1 % 
CA #2:
 44.1 % ∗ 8.2 % 
Adjusted stockpile percent in blend = (44.1%) + (2.2%) –   = 40.2% (12b)
 15.0 % + 44.1 % 
Step 13
Correct the initial blend percentage of each fine aggregate to account for the amount of coarse
aggregate it contains and fine aggregate contributed by the coarse aggregate stockpiles.
Equation
Adjusted stockpile percent in blend
 initial % ∗ Sum FA in CA 
= (initial %) + (CA in FA) −  
 Total % of FA 
FA #1: Adjusted stockpile percent in blend

 40.9% ∗ 2.5% 
= (40.9%) + (8.2%) −   = 46.7% (13)
 40.9% 
The next steps will determine whether MF will be needed to bring the percent passing the
0.075-mm sieve to the desired level.
Step 14
Determine the amount of –0.075-mm material contributed by each aggregate using the adjusted
stockpile percentages.
Calculation
Multiply the percent passing the 0.075-mm sieve for each aggregate by the adjusted blend
percentage for each aggregate.
Equation
Percent contribution of 0.075-mm sieve for each stockpile = adjusted stockpile percent ∗ percent
passing 0.075-mm sieve for that stockpile.
CA #1: Percent contribution 0.075 mm = 13.2% ∗ 1.7% = 0.2% (14a)
CA #2: Percent contribution 0.075 mm = 40.2% ∗ 1.2% = 0.5% (14b)

FA #1: Percent contribution 0.075 mm = 46.7% ∗ 3.0% = 1.4% (14c)
Step 15
Determine the amount of mineral filler required, if any, to bring the percent passing the 0.075-mm
sieve to the desired level. For this mixture the desired amount of –0.075-mm material is 4.5%.
Equation
 % 0.075 mm desired − % 0.075 mm in blend 
Percent of MF =  
 % 0.075 mm in filler 
 4.5 − 2.1 
MF: Percent MF =   = 2.7% (15)
 90% 
Step 16
Determine the final blend percentages of fine aggregate stockpiles by adding the percent MF to
the fine aggregate. In this step the blend percentage of CA is not changed. The blend percentage
of FA is adjusted to account for the MF.
Equation
 % FA ∗ % MF 
Final blend percent for fine aggregate = Adjusted blend percent −  
 Total % FA 
 46.7% ∗ 2.7% 
FA #1: Final blend percent = 46.7% −   = 44.0 (16)
 46.7% 
Results
The final blending percentages are taken from the following equation results:
Equation Result (%)

CA #1 12a 13.2
CA #2 12b 40.2
FA #1 16 44.0
MF 15 2.7
Using these blending percentages, the job mix formula and resulting aggregate ratios are
determined, which are shown in Figure 8.
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR FINE-GRADED MIXES

The calculations below provide an example of the application of the aggregate ratios to fine-
graded mixes. The calculations required for this are shown as follows:
Starting with the gradation shown in the Table 8, which is a 12.5-mm NMPS mixture, the
determination of the original ratios is first performed using the equations given in What Is the
Bailey Method?
Step 1: Determination of the Half-Sieve

The half sieve for a 12.5-mm NMPS mixture is the 6.25-mm sieve. The calculation of the
percent passing the 6.25-mm sieve is:
% Passing Half Sieve = % Passing 9.5 mm – [0.6842 × (% Passing 9.5 mm –

% Passing 4.75 mm)]
= 90.0 – [0.6842 × (90.0 – 65.5)]
= 73.2
Step 2: Determination of the CA Ratio
CA Ratio =
CA Ratio =
(73.2 − 49.1)
(100 − 73.2)
CA Ratio = 0.899
Step 3: Determination of the FAc Ratio
% Passing SCS
FAc =
% Passing PCS
26.5
FAc =
49.1
FAc = 0.540
Sieve Design
Size Blend
19.0 100.0
12.5 99.2
Material Aggregate 9.5 91.4
Grade %
CA #1 Coarse 13.2 4.75 58.7 CA Ratio 0.45
CA #2 Intermediate 40.2 2.36 40.1 FAc Ratio 0.41
FA #1 Slag Sand 44.0 1.18 25.4 FAf Ratio 0.44
Filler MF 2.7 0.60 16.4
0.30 9.7
0.15 7.2
0.75 4.4
FIGURE 8 Job-mix formula and resulting aggregate ratios.

TABLE 8 Gradation for a 12.5-mm NMPS Mixture

Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing
19 100.0
12.5 99.0
9.5 90.0
4.75 65.5
2.36 49.1
1.18 36.8
0.600 26.5
0.300 16.7
0.150 10.1
0.075 6.5
Step 4: Determination of the FAf Ratio
% Passing TCS
FAf =
% Passing SCS
10.1
FAf =
26.5
FAf = 0.381
Step 5: Normalize the Gradation to 100% Passing the PCS

For this 12.5-mm NMPS mixture, the PCS is the 2.36-mm sieve, which has 49.1% passing. To
determine the normalized gradation, the percent passing each sieve size below the PCS is divided
by the percent passing the primary control sieve (Table 9).
Step 6: Determination of the Fine-Graded CA Ratio
FG − CA Ratio =
FG − CA Ratio =
(74.9 − 54.0)
(100 − 74.9)
FG − CA Ratio = 0.832
Step 7: Determination of the Fine-Graded FAc Ratio
% Passing SCS
FG – FA =
% Passing PCS
20.5
FG – FA =
54.0
FG – FA = 0.380
The final fine-graded aggregate ratios for evaluation are:
CA Ratio 0.899
FAc Ratio 0.540
FAf Ratio 0.381
FG–CA Ratio 0.832
FG–FA Ratio 0.380
TABLE 9 Normalizing a 12.5-mm NMPS Mixture Gradation to 100% Passing the PCS
Sieve Size Original Percent Normalization Normalized
(mm) Passing Equation Gradation
19 100.0
12.5 99.0
9.5 90.0
4.75 65.5
49.1
2.36 49.1 100%
49.1
36.8
1.18 36.8 74.9%
49.1
26.5
0.600 26.5 54.0%
49.1
16.7
0.300 16.7 34.0%
49.1
10.1
0.150 10.1 20.5%
49.1
6.5
0.075 6.5 13.2%
49.1
References
1. Vavrik, W. R., W. J. Pine, G. A. Huber, S. H. Carpenter, and R. Bailey. The Bailey Method
of Gradation Evaluation: The Influence of Aggregate Gradation and Packing Characteristics
on Voids in the Mineral Aggregate. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 70, 2001.
2. Vavrik, W. R., W. J. Pine, and S. H. Carpenter. Aggregate Blending for Asphalt Mix Design:
The Bailey Method. Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.
3. Vavrik, W. R. Quality Control of Hot-Mix Asphalt: Controlling Aggregate Interlock Through
The Bailey Method. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Quality Control
and Quality Assurance of Construction Materials, Dubai Municipality, United Arab
Emirates, 2001.
4. Vavrik, W. R. Asphalt Mixture Design Concepts to Develop Aggregate Interlock. Ph.D.
thesis. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2000.
5. Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin. The Rock Physics Handbook—Tools for Seismic
Analysis in Porous Media. Cambridge University Press, Mass.
6. Reed, J. S. Introduction to the Principles of Ceramic Processing. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1988.
7. Bourbie, T., O. Coussy, and B. Zinszner. Acoustics of Porous Media. Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston, Tex., 1987.
8. Johansen, V., and P. J. Andersen. Particle Packing and Concrete Properties. Materials
Science of Concrete II, The American Ceramic Society.
9. Aim, R. B., and P. L. Goff. Effet de Paroi dans les Empilements Desordonnes de Spheres et
Application a la Porosite de Melanges Binaries. Powder Technol, 1967.
10. Toufar, W., M. Born, and E. Klose. Beitrag zur Optimierung der Packungsdichte
Polydisperser Korniger Systeme. Freiberger Forschungsheft A 558, VEB Deutscher Verlag
fur Grundstoffindustrie, 1976.
11. Toufar, W., E. Klose, and M. Born. Berechnung der Packungsdichte von Korngemischen.
Aufbereitungs-Technik, 1977.
12. Designing and Constructing SMA Mixtures—State-of-the-Practice. Quality Improvement
Series 122. National Asphalt Pavement Association, 2001.
34
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute
of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to
promote innovation and progress in transportation by stimulating and conducting research, facilitating the
dissemination of information, and encouraging the implementation of research results. The Board’s varied
activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and
practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the
public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the
component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and
individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
View publication stats

Ec 044

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ec 044

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Bailey method of gradation evaluation: The inﬂuence of aggregate gradation

Article · January 2001

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in

Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in

Timothy B. Aschenbrener, Chair

Brian D. Aho Kent R. Hansen James S. Moulthrop

COMMITTEE ON CHARACTERISTICS OF BITUMINOUS PAVING MIXTURES TO

Ramon Bonaquist, Chair

R. Michael Anderson John T. Harvey James A. Scherocman

Frederick D. Hejl, TRB Representative

Subscriber category Transportation Research Board

T his Circular is a synopsis of current information on the Bailey Method, a systematic

Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in HMA Mixture Design.............................................1

What Is the Bailey Method?..........................................................................................................2

Bailey Method Principles and Fine-Graded Mixes...................................................................17

Bailey Method Principles and SMA Mixes................................................................................19

Use of Recycled Asphalt Pavement ............................................................................................21

Evaluating Existing Mixture Designs with the Bailey Method................................................22

Example Bailey Method Design Calculations ...........................................................................24

T raditionally, asphalt mixtures have been designed using a trial-and-error procedure to

• Aggregate packing, and

• Combine aggregates by volume, and

Coarse and Fine Aggregate

PCS = NMPS × 0.22 (1)

PCS = PCS for the overall blend

Sieve Size (to 0.45 power)

Combining Aggregates by Volume

FIGURE 2 Loose unit weight of coarse aggregate.

Loose Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

Rodded Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

FIGURE 3 Rodded unit weight of coarse aggregate.

Chosen Unit Weight of Coarse Aggregate

Loose Unit Weight Rodded Unit Weight

Chosen Unit Weight

Dense-Graded Mix Dense-Graded Mix SMA Mixes

FIGURE 4 Selection of chosen unit weight of coarse aggregates.

• Aggregate strength, shape, and texture;

Rodded Unit Weight of Fine Aggregate

Determining a Design Blend

• Bulk specific gravity of each aggregate,

FIGURE 5 Rodded unit weight of fine aggregate.

1. Pick a chosen unit weight for the coarse aggregates, kg/m3.

Analysis of the Design Blend

(% Passing Half Sieve − % Passing PCS)

Coarse Portion of Fine Aggregate

Fine Portion of Fine Aggregate

FIGURE 6 Overview of the divisions in a continuous gradation

TABLE 1 Recommended Ranges of Aggregate Ratios

Coarse Portion of Fine Aggregate

Fine Portion of Fine Aggregate

TABLE 2 Control Sieves for Various Asphalt Mixes

Effect of Chosen Unit Weight Changes

Chosen Unit Weight VMA

Effect of CA Ratio Changes

CA Ratio Segregation Potential

Effect of FAc and FAf Ratio Changes

Four Bailey Method Parameters

• Chosen unit weight describes interlock of the coarse aggregate.

TABLE 3 Combined Effect of Changes in Bailey Parameters

I n a coarse-graded HMA, coarse aggregate interlock plays a significant role in resisting

VOLUME OF FINE AGGREGATE